Talk:USS Saratoga (NCC-1887)
Crew service dates Why were the date of service for the crew changed to be less specific? The more specific dating system is more informative, and provides a more useful reference to both readers and authors, and doesn't really have a cost in space or neatness. Would there be a problem with changing the dates back? --Columbia clipper 18:44, July 20, 2010 (UTC) :In the cases of crew where A) We don't know when they started serving and B) we don't know when they ended serving -- we haven't lost any accuracy -- the term "circa" looks a lot better than using dashes and question marks. I'm a little unclear what more information you think could be offered there since both the start dates and end dates are unknown. -- Captain MKB 19:23, July 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Margaret Alexander's information is less specific ("2280s" vice "at least 2285 - at least 2289, but before 2293"). I see that the circa references are simply a different way to convey the same information, but I think they're less clear. If a character were said to have served aboard a ship "above five years ago" in 2291, "c. 2286" would describe it perfectly, but if we know they did serve aboard in 2286; by the same token, service that we know had begun by 2286, but don't know the end-date of, isn't necessarily indicated by "c. 2286" - which could represent service exclusively in 2285 or 2287, which we have reason to believe was near 2286, but the precise year or dates of which aren't known. --Columbia clipper 23:11, July 20, 2010 (UTC) :Can I ask why it's necessary to try and force all this information into this list? Alexander's article notes all of these dates and a curious individual could click on her name and find this out. Adding a bunch of dashes and question marks without concrete text (complete phrases) to explain them is really unencyclopedic, if we don't have the information, we shouldn't try and force unknown quantities into the list. :The "circa" crewmen are perfectly annotated now. We know they were there in 2286. It's probable but not able to be confirmed that they were there in 2285 and 2287, so there's no real need to create that impression. "Circa 2286" gives us the fact that they were there, but doesn't lead us down the unencyclopedic path of admitting we have no idea when they got there or when they left. :This list is to show who was on the ship, not to list their entire careers. I suppose Alexander could be "circa 2285 to circa 2289" to show the generalized knowledge we have but the notation about the fact that she was promoted by 2293 can go in the article text as in "By the early 2290s, Alexander was no longer the captain of this vessel, she was an admiral". The fact that she had moved on isn't really as relevant to the crew list as it is to the article text. -- Captain MKB 00:18, July 21, 2010 (UTC) I can't say I'm a fan of the generalising dates in the way that has been done here with the captain. I find it misleading, because to me it implies she served throughout the 2380s when we don’t know anything about the first half of the decade. I would prefer the "circa 2285 - circa 2289" suggested above, or better yet (c. 2285 - c. 2289), as I believe that is acceptable notation and stops the date references getting too heavy. --8of5 18:08, July 24, 2010 (UTC) :I concur. The way I'd written the reference previously was unwieldy, but the current reference is too vague. I also prefer the traditional "c." to "circa". --Columbia clipper 18:11, July 24, 2010 (UTC) Registry The registry was change at MA due to new information, and I don't know if there's any conflicting info in the books, so I don't know if this should be moved here, and the external link at MA still points to 1867. - 07:23, April 15, 2011 (UTC)